forums wiki bugs items changes map login play now

Bounty system

Before I read Celerity's post, I'd like to point out that at least Bounties were changed recently. The only part about it that still made me wonder why, was that the bag still goes to the person who bountied them and not the Hunter which is what I gathered from reading it. Bounties in my own eyes were always more of a RP standpoint and less of a status to try and full loot someone by continually bountying them. By this I mean I don't think the bountier should get anything from it other than the fact that they were killed and MAYBE even their head, but not any of their wares. Syndicate members may have busted their ass to try and get the kill, and often times push themselves almost to the point of death and in some cases even death that didn't result in the end of the intended target.

Everyone says that WM is the newbie Cabal to PK because it ends up typically in a stun. I myself have always viewed that those within Syndicate should also be inducted to get a different perspective of things. It allows them to have a wider array of PK than that of WM because it will result in death. It gives you more of an idea of how others run or chase, so if you've nearly got them killed, you recognize their patterns easier that benefits you more in tactics. A WM challenge on the other hand typically takes place in one area though and it has 0 meaning in terms of a real PK. Sure you can say Barbarians could do the same thing, but honestly I'd rather have Syndicate skills in a real PK and not Barbarians since it usually favors very specific classes where as Syndicate favors most, if not all that are allowed to join.

I've always said they are the hired gun of sorts to which F0xx said was very narrow minded in my statement of such. But look at pretty much a majority of those who play them. There's nothing stopping them from extorting gold from others who are bountied, especially if the person knows they could be easily killed by them. In fact that to me would be a better spin to it than just collecting. People have some preconceived notions that if you're a Hunter that you need to collect bounties. From my stand point I'd rather see 0 kills and someone with an actual life to them than someone who only goes after bounties 24/7. Sure you wont be promoted to T possibly ever depending on who's in charge of the Cabal, but you can gain a lot more through RP than you can through the PK. If that's all you do, everyone logs off. If they know you're willing to work with them, chances are you'd end up with more gold or other beneficial benefits than if you were to just outright kill them the first time you see them.

People bounty others for ultimately stupid reasons though anymore. I understand if that's your RP if you're established, but randomly doing so just for the sake of pleasing a Syndicate because they're "bored" is ridiculous. Nothing is stopping the Evils within in killing others and if they are Evil and you're Good even without a bounty I'd expect it. I've had it happen several times in fact. If you're a Neutral, take a damned trip with someone and explore or RP with others and see who they really are. If they're logging off every time they have a bounty because that's all you're ever attempting, have fun being the only 50 on, or being chased by people who are guaranteed to beat you repeatedly since that's really all a majority of who is on the board that stays there for longer periods of time.

I understand that if you're in an alliance with Syndicate that you're expected to contribute to the bounty board because that's what everyone within really wants, but that should never come from the Merchant side of things either. Soliciting offers for bounties is ridiculous, if the game is boring for you to sit around doing nothing, you're playing it wrong. I've spent 11 hours online straight once and I honestly thought it was about 6 because of the interactions I had with others. I've also seen non bounty bounties before being done which is far more interesting than the actual board because it skipped the middle man. X amount of money on someone's head that all of it goes directly to the Hunter or whoever took it without ever needing to actually use the bounty board. Far more interesting, and the gold usually ends up being more than what people place on others head and it's driven by RP because they disrespected someone to want to place said bounty.

Ultimately though it seems we're moving in the right direction with bounties in the coding of such recently. It wasn't exactly as high as I had proposed on several occasions, but I'll take the halfway mark over nothing any day. Nothing is really stopping you from being bountied though, and I find it funny that many of my own characters often have a bounty placed after I hit 50, and even at level 40 sometimes. Just remember though that if you default on your loans from a Merchant or a Merchant MOB, you typically are placed on there automatically from what I've seen. Such was the case a couple months ago because someone took a loan out from the MOB and never repaid it which resulted in a level 30 being #1 on the bounty board for a little while. Bounties suck a majority of the time though. You're either extremely under powered  because you're just hitting 50, or they're facing a very difficult battle. On the flip side of that though, when there are no Syndicate members at all, bounties aren't really a bother most of the time. Even with the ones we do have now they still find difficulty in some of them. The higher priced bounties are typically always people you don't have much of a chance with and the ones you do were probably bountied due to RP reasons. The lower priced bounties were always a slap in the face though. Down the road I expect everything will eventually be better for everyone, but nothing prevents the Syndicate from RPing a way NOT to PK. It just takes someone with the balls enough to actually step in that direction to make it work overall.

2 minutes ago, Wade said:

I dont see how limiting options can ever enrich the game experience.

If being neutral is such an advantage, why don't we address that instead.

  1. You are limited in how much EQ you can wear, but this enriches the game experience through balance.

You are limited in what RP themes you can do (no star wars jedi in FL), but this enriches the experience due to thematic consistency.

You are limited in how you can RP an alignment for both balance and thematic reasons, which serve to enrich the game experience.

  1. I agree with that, except for the 'instead' portion. Syndicate includes align considerations, but also has much larger, structural problems, such as the incentive issue and disproportionately hurting weaker characters issue.

Neutral balance in itself is a topic that goes way beyond just Syndicate and so it isn't really being discussed in this thread that focuses on bounties/Syndicate.

I would like to point out that I could easily see a neutral joining Syndicate... even drawing some meaningful blood.  E.g  We all get considerably more oppressive of the Hamlet.  I could see a halfling smuggler joining the Syndicate after seeing that monetary goods doesn't cause the outside world to treat his people as first class citizens.  Shank a few of these important heroes and blam... halfling is back off the menu boys!  At what point would a being consider himself evil if he killed... a Val Miran Noble who happened to be taxing his family to death?  Probably never.  I have always been of the opinion that alignment is most important to the player.  Murder is bad on Earth, but in FL... an avatar can slaughter 42 drow babies and consider himself a pretty awesome dude.  There are clearly lines we can draw to "dehumanize" certain populations to make a murder not evil in the FL world.  Clearly unlawful, but not inherently evil.  Just my thoughts.

Edited

@Tantangel, the thought behind the removal of the bounty bag from the Syndicate is because they do not need it. They are there standing over the corpse where they can take what they want, on top of the fact they are getting paid for the job already.

On top of that it is a little sucky because its an automatic loss of 6 rare items when you were collected.

Edited

5 minutes ago, Rygothran said:

@Tantangel, the thought behind the removal of the bounty bag from the Syndicate is because they do not need it. They are there standing over the corpse where they can take what they want, on top of the fact they are getting paid for the job already.

On top of that it is a little sucky because its an automatic loss of 6 rare items when you were collected.

 

Only if they don't drop the bag... Which most collectors seem to do for me...

@KRins, I agree with your premise that situations exist for neutrals to kill, especially in FL. You just have to remember that Syndicate are contract assassins that kill not for ideological reasons, but for profit. They aren't ideological terrorists who kill Tribunal political figures. A syndicate assassin has very little choice over their targets: their targets are determined only by bounties.

Everything a Syndicate does is centered around the collection of bounties. The reason for the bounty isn't known to the Syndicate, but the Syndicate still indiscriminately collects those bounties. Those indiscriminate killings cannot be justified by other, 'good' killings to balance them out.

In FL, killing for personal profit is evil. A neutral is not allowed to kill anyone to acquire their gear. They need a better reason.

In FL, indiscriminate killing is evil. A neutral needs a reason to kill beyond "I want to", "I don't know why" or "somebody told me to". This includes cabal obligations.

In FL, balanced killing is evil. Killing one good, then one evil, then another good, then another evil doesn't make you neutral. It makes you evil.

So, by the rules of FL, Syndicate activity is clearly, undeniably evil. If any non-Syndicate acted like a Syndicate neutral, they would be punished for violating align rules. This is the inconsistency.

Edited

I can agree to all of that.  I guess I cannot pretend to have ever... despite technically being associated for like... a decade, actually had a character in syndicate.  I was aware bounty hunting was pretty core, I guess I didn't realize it was all encompassing goal.  In full confession, I am usually the one shanked and sad so it works for me if I found myself gored less.

@RygothranI can see why it would seem like they need it over the Syndicate, but often times the reason for someone to bounty another is purely RP but the system in which gaining items knowingly from their corpse by bountying them to me has been very OOC. Syndicate themselves may have also gotten very lucky, so if the three best things that someone had that would have made it beneficial for them to kill just goes to the person who bountied them and that Syndicate is left out of the loop for it. For instance if they managed to kill Irant and he didn't have life insurance up because they felt it wouldn't be needed manages to die to Xtonial. The three best items that he could've gained goes to that level 40 Warrior who just hit the range and bountied others so he could get the 3 items he was guaranteed to get. They can then go and sell what they don't get from the bag to others, or sacrifice them all because he knew he'd be guaranteed 3 items regardless of what they are. To me that just rewards people in OOC ways rather than an RP way which the bounty system should be and can be used and as is being used by very few.

It does suck when you lose 6 items, but most people got back one of the bags and generally from the Syndicate themselves. Sometimes you get useless things in the bags and that was mainly because of the six items that went into the bags, now that there is only one bag though the chances of better things is that much higher. To top it off you don't get the full amount of gold placed upon them which is why I wanted the prices to go up overall anyways. 50k bounties resulted in 35k gained for the Hunter and any of the gold in the corpse which often times is pretty low unless you caught them at the end of a good trip. By the bags going to the person who bountied them it only serves to benefit them or even a Merchant if they happen to be around when it goes down. I'd rather have a system that did a rare check on characters killed by Syndicate though. One that will give you between 0 and 3 items based on what they're wearing so that if you're wearing between 0-3 rares you get nothing, but if you're decked out you lose 3. All going to the one putting their own life on the line.

I see it as you place bounties due to obligation when you're in an alliance with Syndicate, when you feel like you were disrespected in some way, or even because something about them rubbed you wrong and you just want to have the satisfaction of knowing that their time is nearly up. To bounty someone because you like their armor is not just OOC, but very Evil in many ways meaning that unless you have an RP reason to do it, only Evils should be able to bounty indiscriminately. There have been a few people in the past who have basically stated that they just placed the bounties because they knew they had something that they wanted but didn't want to take the time to get it themselves. Sure it's a gamble of getting it still, but it was placed because you as the person behind the screen knew what would happen by doing so. If it goes straight to the Syndicate the problem is solved entirely though and it may also lead to higher RP interactions between Syndicate members and those who were killed. But I also like to think of exactly why someone would do something like that at times, as I myself have fought every urge possible at times to not bounty people because it would be completely OOC for my character to do so if they get me angry. I also know though that my way of thinking is very much in the minority though from past posts.

Killing for profit must NOT be considered evil. 

Sorry to disagree, everyone. But;

Every character kills creatures all over the lands for the personal growth of their characters. They profit experience, gold, or these days, even RP. 

What you mean to say I believe is killing famous heroes of Aabahran for the sake of gaining gold or Cabal Respect is an evil act.

Evil is a matter of perspective, I am certain that the globules in Darkshtyre think the Himmah is the most evil man alive.

That said, here is my question. Why do we claim the bounty hunter is the evil one, and not place blame where it belongs, on the one placing the bounty?

A neutral placing a bounty on a good person, or a good placing a bounty on a neutral person, these things trouble me.

I like @Celerity idea, just not sure that I am convinced that doing ones duty to their cabal should be considered an evil act. Watchers kill more innocent people than Syndicate.

40 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

I like @Celerity idea, just not sure that I am convinced that doing ones duty to their cabal should be considered an evil act. Watchers kill more innocent people than Syndicate.

In the defense of Watchers everywhere, they were given the opportunity to show nature their love with a warm arboral embrace and made a poor choice given the option.

 

I also agree I do not find a criminal killing someone in the commission of a crime or after words inherently evil.  Again, your opinion doesn't shape my character.  I can have weighed the choice, decided 1 is less than 1043, and made a regretable but necessary choice.  It may be deliberately naive, but if someone tells you for a scientific fact they know Bob saw you bring a fatal amount of illegal goods into the city and he happens to have a brother in the arbiters... and you are the sole reason your ENTIRE TOWN was receiving medicine (referring to my disgruntled halfling)... shanking the hell out of the blabbermouth to save hundreds of sick people... that is practically the DEFINITION of being an Avatar.  The only difference is where you elect to place the line.  At least the Syndicate could donate his earnings to a charity to ease his conflicted conscience.  Where do you rectify murdering children or old, blind men?  I would argue racist massacre (this is where we prepare societal stats for the inevitable "but race means something different in FL" argument) is a LOT worse than an entirely explainable murder for legitimate reasons.  X is evil, every single one.  Kill them all regardless of their personal past.  I should kill every single one, even the babies, to save countless people going forward.  Paragon of all that is good.  Killing a person whose existence compromises the futures of more than one person sounds at LEAST debatable... and as such not cut and dried evil.  Nothing prevents me from being suggested by my handler that each name is a potential witness... in the same way you get to pick your hair color, I get to decide things about my character too.  You, the stabbed, might find my action evil towards you... but I was pretty sure you were going to get me executed and I represent the future of an entire population.  You sound like a threat negated to people I clearly hold in high regard.  The concept of work for profit is not inherently evil.  The concept of defending one's existence and family are not evil.  If I interpret your existence as a direct threat to my life and my family... I think YOU are evil and exterminating you is pretty much a day's work and a nice sleep after the fact... even here on Earth I wouldn't feel overly awful shoving a gun in a robber's face and pulling the trigger.  It is an individual's point of view that dictates evil.  The difference between wanton PK and "awesome RP" is if you can come up with any reason at all... even I am a sociopathic racist... but... loose ends is evil?  It is far too simplified.  Would every police officer be executed for murder?  Of course not, there are places for everything... including automatic weapon fire.  In fact, the only universal I COULD list here is that it is certainly NOT good to kill people... except for players of Avatars... and Knights... and Crusaders... and some Paladins... and pretty much all goods.

 

Ancedotally, I was DIRECTLY punished for not wantonly slaughtering an NPC on an Avatar hopeful...an old, blind NPC... due to my character's RP, knowing FULL WELL they wanted me to murder it, so clearly indiscriminate killing is not evil.  It is, in proper setting, considered the MOST GOOD THING YOU CAN DO.

Edited

I agree with @Celerity's idea. I've been trying to think of a change to Syndicate and the current bounty system, and this seems to cover pretty much all those bases. 

You have my vote.

My biggest issue is the random bounty issue. Alot of people seem pretty passive about it, but I get moderately frustrated being constantly bountied when I have no cabal affiliations, dont aggressively pk, and my RP has been pretty passive.

6 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Evil is a matter of perspective

Not in FL it isn't.  Good, neutrality and evil in FL are metaphysical attributes, not matters of opinion.  Objects in FL are evil or good or neutral.  Entire races are born evil or good or neutral.  Actions are defined as evil or good or neutral via metaphysical laws, and good and evil beings can be magically detected as such.  The mass murder of evil beings is a good act because the metaphysics of FL define it to be, and the mass murder of good or neutral beings is (usually) an evil act for the same reason.

Edited

There is SOME control over who can place bounties though it is pretty much wide open. I tried to play a greed religion healer that placed huge bounties on all evil characters once. I was told by the heavens that I could bounty only the unliving and that's it. So there are some rules. I think in general the imms somewhat watch who is placing bounties.

What I think would be a cool feature would be allowing characters to place anti-bounties on themselves.  So for example I go to the bounty office and I put down a million gold or a thousand CP. Now I have protection. If someone tries to bounty me for less than my protection the difference of the two amounts goes on their head instead and I get a note saying so and so tried to bounty me.

The idea might need fleshing out as I'm just writing it as I think about it. The main goal being to add some danger to placing a bounty as right now there are zero downsides to bountying others.

3 hours ago, Pali said:

and the mass murder of good or neutral beings is (usually) an evil act for the same reason.

So three neutrals hunting in the Everwild should be punished for being excessively evil? 

3 hours ago, Pali said:

Not in FL it isn't.

The Watchers consistent raids on Val Miran, a hometown of only good and neutral people is an evil act as well?

3 hours ago, Pali said:

Not in FL it isn't.

We will have to agree that we disagree.

1 hour ago, Manual Labour said:

What I think would be a cool feature would be allowing characters to place anti-bounties on themselves.

The Seamstress tells you " @Fool_Hardy tried to put a hit out on you, I took his money and placed a bounty on you both." :) +1 to added danger.

You cant compare NPCs with Player Champions.

Champions are expected to ascend to the peak of their guilds and hunting is a core mechanic of the game.

Same with traveling and equipping. Killing NPCs en masse to level up or get decked is not an evil act.

You also cannot compare a raid on a city to outright murder of another champion. Watchers have a very good RP reason to raid cities, and even though there are casualties it is not cold blooded murder. Citizens are theoretically given a chance to escape the city. Raids are not for the primarily purpose of killing civilians, they are for destroying the city and those who guard it/operate it. They are also designed to weaken the Empire, which is a hard coded enemy of the Watchers.

You can say you agree to disagree but that doesn't make you right, nor does it make your stance valid. Pali is correct as far as I can see, there are certain HARD CODED rules to the game. People need to stop using real life examples or comparisons, the FL rules are not based in any way on real life logic or morals.

7 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

The Seamstress tells you " @Fool_Hardy tried to put a hit out on you, I took his money and placed a bounty on you both." :) +1 to added danger.

That's not really how I envisioned it... More like this:

Player A puts down a 1 million gold protection on himself.

Player B goes to bounty player A for 500,000 gold.

Player B now has a 500,000 gold bounty on his own head (the balance remaining after the subtraction)

Player A gets notified that Player B tried to bounty him.

The 500,000 bounty is now on Player B, the extra million gold goes to Syndicate.

In this system you have to constantly pay protection money if you want to reverse bounties, people placing bounties willy nilly should now think twice, or at least not be cheap because it could backfire. Syndicate still wins because they make even more money and will always have a bounty to collect.

In the event of a tie....the bounty being the same as the protection amount...the Syndicate can just keep all the gold and no bounty will be placed? This might need more thought. But in general I think it would make things interesting.

1 hour ago, Manual Labour said:

You cant compare NPCs with Player Champions.

If I play a storm giant avatar cleric, and see three neutrals hunting my people in the caverns. I have a real RP reason to place a bounty on them if they refuse to stop. Yet the Hard Coded rules say that as an Avatar I would be punished for this do they not? Not using a real life comparison here, its an FL life comparison. As an Avatar I would be punished for attacking the neutrals myself, and as a cleric likely punished for placing the bounty as well.  I divert to my signature below.

35 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

If I play a storm giant avatar cleric, and see three neutrals hunting my people in the caverns. I have a real RP reason to place a bounty on them if they refuse to stop. Yet the Hard Coded rules say that as an Avatar I would be punished for this do they not? Not using a real life comparison here, its an FL life comparison. As an Avatar I would be punished for attacking the neutrals myself, and as a cleric likely punished for placing the bounty as well.  I divert to my signature below.

Be careful here because you may be conflating two completely different issues.

Issue 1) Neutrals hunting goods to reach their pinnacle. This is NOT evil.

Issue 2) An Avatar placing a bounty on a Neutral. I don't think this is acceptable RP in any circumstances from my understanding of Avatars. You can definitely DO IT, but there may be consequences.

That being said, I see no reason why someone playing a storm giant or even any <race/class> who is RPing a storm giant sympathizer could not go and interfere with the hunt. It is perfectly good RP to approach the group and try to persuade them to leave for whatever your RP reason is. You could even interfere with the hunt by healing the storm giants, or even attacking the group. Chasing someone off is not the same as killing them so it is not necessarily bad RP at all.

I remember a neutral ranger from WAY back who would warn people not to hunt the Kaddar Faeries, and if they ignored him he would attack the group. He was not hyper aggressive, if you left or stopped he would leave you be.

So the point of this is that yes NPCs have actual races and alignments, and we should not ignore them (especially if you are good aligned). It is perfectly good RP to involve NPCs in your shtick if you want, but for reasons of core mechanics it will never be considered evil to kill them repeatedly.

At least this is my take on the game and rules.